WARNING! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! WARNING! The last days to ignore pleas to contact your elected Utah Federal delegation to Congress are rapidly approaching. It's crunch time. Either implore your Congressional delegation to vote to preserve all of your rights, by sustaining the lynch pin right, The Second Amendment, uninfringed, OR, place all of your firearms and ammunition in a container for easy confiscation by authorities.

For the truly interested in supporting data, it can be found in the raw, at: http://diygovernment.us/raw_gun_control_data.html

For those who would respond to the above with,"TL;dr", a synopsis:

Big name formerly pro-gun Republicans are caving in and advocating California style gun control. President Trump abandoned gun owners and is now calling for extreme gun control measures. The only way to stop him will be to prevent Congress from going along with his schemes.

The threat from President Trump is actually much greater than it was from anything President Obama called for. Unfortunately, when it is a member of delegation have stated that they are considering these measures. They

In a recent meeting with lawmakers President Trump made many disturbing
a bill that has passed the House and is now in the Senate in order to get the

President Trump has also said he wants to "Take the guns first, go through due asserted to have mental issues. He also stated “A lot of times by the
procedures. I like taking the guns early,”.

The successful tactics in play, heretofore, have been to get special interest
while Progressive Liberal infiltration that is undermining Liberty works across

Previously, such a plan was articulated by a Minister of Public Enlightenment
the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to
as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into

President Obama. Republicans in Congress were never going to go along with
their party many seem to think gun control is cool. Members of Utah's Congressional
need to hear from you now.

comments. He said he wants to remove national concealed carry reciprocity from strengthened background check portion of the bill passed.

process second." when it comes to confiscating guns from people who are
time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process

groups to focus independently on areas of erosion of rights that interests them,
the spectrum with a coordinated agenda.

and Propaganda, when he said, "We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come the flock, so we come."

Right at the start,

How many MASS SHOOTINGS have been committed by NRA members?

The answer is HERE.

Data points that substantiate the assertion that fascism, abetted by gun confiscation efforts via a rescinding of the Second Amendment can be found in the raw data, but, not to be overlooked are:

  1. ) A push for an Article V convention of States to redesign the Constitution.
  2. ) Use of various "public safety" measures which are traps for fools set by knaves purposed the make useful idiots demand that the law abiding surrender meekly their means of self-defense and national liberty.
  3. ) Ever tightening of consolidation of all avenues of media dissemination that must pass through Progressive Liberal media filters. The result of which is the censorship and liquidation of information by Conservatives and the denunciation by "several independent news sources", which are all tentacles of the same Progressive Liberal swamp creature, of Conservative attempts to push back.
  4. ) Emblematic of the goals of false facades called political parties is encapsulated in a slogan of Mussolini, "All within the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State."

  5. ) A Utah proposal that has been blessed by the Tenth Circuit Court, which would allow the bill's threat that if a coalition of like-minded do not submit to the State's edict as to whom may run as their candidate, (all within the State), an alternative candidate chosen by them (nothing outside the State) will not be allowed on the ballot. (nothing against the State).

This Is No Monty Python Skit: Your corpse belongs to the State! to do with it as it wills. Soylent Green, anybody?

Southern Tried Fascism, Arkansas Style

Small Arkansas town is attempting to ban groups from meeting to talk about the city without first getting prior permission from the city itself. Ordinance currently applies to all groups small and large including, but not limited to: bookclubs, boyscouts, and dinner table discussions.

In response to the mayor vetoing the City Council's attempt to repeal the First Amendment, the mayor was pistol whipped and later assaulted on live TV.

Three years later, the mayor resigned.

See also: Black Skins, Brown Shirts

The last days to ignore pleas by the USSC to contact your elected Utah Federal delegation to Congress are rapidly approaching.

The Past As Prologue

The oligarchy of which nation did collude to intervene in elections in foreign countries? Whose oligarchy would not hesitate to maintain their power in the United States?
                                                            David Rockerfeller, CFR member

Evidence That In This Case, David Rockerfeller, Was Telling The Truth

Confirmations by historical events

The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere

The United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and fomented coups against democratically elected populists.

The Iranian Intervention
The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 — whose government was replaced by an authoritarian monarchy favorable to Washington —

The Congolese Intervention
the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961,

The Chilean Intervention
The socialist government of Chilean President Salvador Allende, was swept aside in 1973 by a violent toppling by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

The Guatemala Intervention
Sometimes that agenda also explicitly converged with the interests of U.S. business: In 1954, Washington unseated Guatemala's left-wing president, Jacobo Arbenz, who had had the temerity to challenge the vast control of the United Fruit Co., a U.S. corporation, with agrarian laws that would be fairer to Guatemalan farmers. The CIA went on to install and back a series of right-wing dictatorships that brutalized the impoverished nation for almost half a century.

The Italian Intervention
The CIA used a clandestine propaganda campaign: This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via FABRICATED SEX SCANDALS, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.

The Brazil Intervention:
The US Ambassador Lincoln Gordon later admitted that the embassy had given money to anti-Goulart candidates in the 1962 municipal elections, and had encouraged the plotters; many extra United States military and intelligence personnel were operating in four United States Navy oil tankers and the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal, in an operation code-named Operation Brother Sam. These ships had positioned off the coast of Rio de Janeiro in case Brazilian troops required military assistance during the 1964 coup. A document from Gordon in 1963 to US president John F. Kennedy also describes the ways João Goulart should be put down, and his fears of a communist intervention supported by the Soviets or by Cuba.

Washington immediately recognized the new government in 1964, and hailed the coup d'état as one of the "democratic forces" that had allegedly staved off the hand of international communism. American mass media outlets like Henry Luce's TIME also gave positive remarks about the dissolution of political parties and salary controls at the beginning of Castello Branco mandate.

The Intentional Similarity Between The NAZI gun registraion form and the U.S. gun registration form:
Chief Difference: the NAZi form asked about religion, the U.S. form asks about race.

We know the reason for the NAZI religion question. What is the purpose of the U.S. race question?


Big name formerly Republicans are caving in

Big name formerly pro-gun Republicans are caving in and advocating California style gun control. President Trump abandoned gun owners and is now calling for extreme gun control measures. The only way to stop him will be to prevent Congress from going along with his schemes.

It's crunch time. Either implore your Congressional delegation to vote to preserve all of your rights, by sustaining the lynch pin right, The Second Amendment, uninfringed, OR, place all of your firearms and ammunition in a container for easy confiscation by authorities.

For the truly interested in supporting data, and obtaining information about how to contact Utah's Federal Congressional members, both can be found in the raw, at:

Big name formerly pro-gun Republicans are caving in and advocating California style gun control. President Trump abandoned gun owners and is now calling for extreme gun control measures. The only way to stop him will be to prevent Congress from going along with his schemes.

The threat from President Trump is actually much greater that it was from President Obama. Republicans in Congress were never going to go along with anything President Obama called for. Unfortunately, when it is a member of their party, many seem to think gun control is cool. Members of Utah's Congressional delegation have stated that they are considering these measures. They need to hear from you now.

In last week's meeting with lawmakers President Trump made many disturbing comments. He said he wants to remove national concealed carry reciprocity from a bill that has passed the House and is now in the Senate in order to get the strengthened background check portion of the bill passed.

President Trump has also said he wants to "Take the guns first, go through due process second." when it comes to confiscating guns from people who are asserted to have mental issues. He also stated “A lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early,”.


"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

The "adjudicated mentally ill" Second Amendment infringement is a camel's nose under a tent which those who demanded a Bill of Rights were wise enough to not carve an exception.

In the 19th Century, there was no treatment for mental illnesses except exorcism. Additionally, there persisted a belief in the existence of witches and warlocks. Nevertheless, no asterisk was placed next to the phrase "shall not be infringed" to exclude witches and warlocks, the Satanic possessed, nor the insane. Why was that, why is that still, a display of uncommon wisdom?

In every epoch there exists cowards willing to exchange a veneer of safety for sacrifice of true liberty. Simultaneously, there exists a craven layer of society willing to exploit the foolish weakness of the first group by presenting an illusion of safety by sacrifice of others' liberty. In doing so, they expands their own power to engage in the liberty of unfettered prerogatives.

Then, there exists a third group, often in the minority. In that group we find the framers of the federal constitution and the Anti-Federalists who demanded an explicit Bill of Rights. Upon the third group has always fallen the responsibility to educate the gullible, as much as possible, in order to ameliorate the folly of cowards, while at the same time, maintain a force of arms to intimidate knaves who are would-be exploiters of the weak that set linguistic traps for fools constructed as reasonable appearing safety laws.

There are no hard physical markers of mental illness. Membership in an organization that defends the Second Amendment, or a social media post of the same flavor might be construed as a sign of mental illness with a legislative coalition of cowards and knaves. A belief that the only signs and symptoms of an adjudicated mental illness will be universally agreed upon criteria is in itself the mental illness of delusion.

By current standards of psychiatric definitions of mental illness, a defendant medically mentally ill, may be considered legally sane, and vice versa. For the purposes of infringement of the Second Amendment there is no rational rebuttal that psychiatric and legislative agenda cannot find common language definition.

Actually, to whip unfounded hysteria about mental illness and gun possession, as a clear and present danger, is not difficult. Consider the following hyperbolic headline:

Trump cuts Obama rule blocking mentally ill people from buying guns


Is the headline accurate? Absolutely not! The law repealed removed the Second Amendment rights of about 75,000 persons alleged to be mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs. Those person were never adjudicated as mentally ill. There is no definite connection between a diagnosis of mental illness, financial mismanagement, and a prediliction to violence.

What the law signed by President Trump actually repealed was a requirement by the Social Security Administration to report to the federal government gun background database persons the SSA deemed financially unfit because they received disability payments from Social Security and that they received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.

A easy expansion of such a rule could be that anyone who has filed for bankrupcy is financially unfit. In Utah, a law was passed that prohibits a certain small number of firearms to be seized as property to be sold in order to satisfy creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding.

GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that “if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it.”

Then there is the reasonable infringement of "no fly, no buy".

Oddly, a bipartisan coalition of left and right can be formed to oppose that poisoned shiny red apple disarmament ploy.


See also: http://theconversation.com/mental-illness-and-gun-laws-what-you-may-not-know-about-the-complexities-92337

Shortly after composing the above hypothetical infringement, the Chinese government made it a reality with a policy they call, SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE


The Dangerous, even Satanic Forces, do give WARNING, before they attack.

The rattlesnake rattles, the skunk thumps its tail, The Fabian Socialist, calling themselves Wilsonian Progressives (e.g. Hillary Clinton) create a stained glass window, on display at the London School of Economics

A more detailed explanation of the Fabian Window (enlarged) can be found HERE.

The Buckshot Caucus of Utah is an ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

The man that retired Utah GOP debt: David Bateman Exposes “Buckshot Caucus” Lies
By Cherilyn Bacon Eagar On Mar 20, 2018

Who is Dave Bateman? What is the Buckshot Caucus? Why is Bateman being extorted?

Here’s Dave Bateman, CEO of the Year, Entrata, property management software entrepeneur, the man that retired the Utah Republican Party’s debt.

Here are some Facebook Live videos you need to watch before tonight’s caucus:

David Bateman responds to Daryl Acumen, CMV and Buckshot Caucus

David Bateman exposes Daryl Acumen and the Buckshot Caucus’ lies and extortion. #StoptheBS

Dave Bateman is the man that retired the $400,000 debt the Utah Republican Party owed in its defense of its First Amendment right to freely associate.

A few have called for Party leaders to quit and to give in, citing so much debt.

But Dave paid it. So why do they continue to complain?

Because along with paying the debt, he is nearly single-handedly saving Utah’s caucus, which the Establishment hoped to destroy. With help from some of the best grassroots conservatives in the field the general public is now becoming aware that something is terribly wrong in high places.

The Establishment and its accomplice – Big Media – lie. They call it “Count My Vote,” but they actually want to take away your voice in the process.

So Dave stepped forward and launched the counter initiative – The Freedom of Association Initiative under the banner of the Keep My Voice campaign.

For more information and to get involved, go to Keep My Voice

Most of all, Dave Bateman is courageous enough to expose the corruption he has encountered in the process. He dropped the first of several bombshells last night.

As a result, he has now become the latest target.

From Defending Utah



Dave Bateman


Alledged Extortion Audio Recording

Highly Suspect Buckshot Caucus Membership List As Gleaned From A Facebook Page

Secretary of State Project

Formed in the fall of 2006 by Becky Bond, Michael Kieschnick and James Rucker,[1] the Secretary of State Project was an American non-profit, progressive or liberal 527 political action committee focused on electing reform-minded progressive Secretaries of State in battleground states,[2] who typically oversee the election process. They hoped to prevent a repeat of Florida 2000, where the projects backers claimed that a Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, took a partisan role in helping to determine the 2000 presidential election results.[1]

A notable achievement of the Secretary of State Project was the election of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie in 2006. Ritchie played a pivotal role in adjudicating the 2008 Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman, by examining disputed absentee ballots during the Minnesota Senate recount.[3]

In 2010 during the midterm election GOP wave, the PAC was run by Laura Packard. 2 of 7 candidates were re-elected (California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie). After 2010, the Project had disappeared.[

See also:Don’t let Soros and the “Secretary of State Project” take over your state.

States' Secretaries of State Are Tipping Balance of Power

And How Might The Above Affect An Election In Utah? The Event Below Is Data:

A Thug Will Do What A Thug Does Best. The Gadianton Posse Does The Rest. Hillary Mittens!



New Threats Pushing Old Failed "Solutions" - the Indivisble Project movement, Antifa, the Public Lands Management Act

What is Envision Utah?

Master of Propagandizing Through False Bandwagon Effect

Their Headline: Envision Utah works to understand what Utahns want for the future. Then we find collaborative ways to make their vision a reality.

Their Headline: UTAHNS WANT TO IMPROVE EDUCATION: The good news is there are things we can do to make sure all Utahns get the kind of education that leads to prosperous communities, strong families, and great quality of life.

Their Headline: Recommended State Water Strategy: Click below to view the recommendations the water advisory team has delivered to Governor Herbert.

Understand the Public Lands Management Act. It is purposed to abolish State's Legislatures from having authority over public lands within their State, giving that legislative authority to one appointed bureaucrat that will have to authority to invent laws and enforce them with a police agency that he may create. http://www.brainerd.org/downloads/Omnibus_Public_Lands_Act_summary.pdf

What is Indivisible Project?

Launched after Donald Trump’s election, Indivisible became a nationwide movement of thousands of volunteer-led local groups that engage in progressive advocacy and electoral work at the local, state, and national level. Indivisible Project, a 501(c)(4), was established to lift up that grassroots movement of local groups to defeat the Trump agenda, elect progressive leaders, and realize bold progressive policies. We support local Indivisible groups by offering legislative advocacy and political expertise and by building political power everywhere.

It plans to change the conversation about our country’s values and ultimately take power in government at every level to make it responsive to those values.

What are its values? Its values are summed up with the undefined slogan: Inclusion, Tolerance, and Fairness.

It offers a comprehensive guide for downloading and learning how to organize and control Members of Congress (MoC) at: http://www.indivisible.org/guide/

In keeping with the loose structure of other movements such as Black Lives Matter, Indivisible isn't a hierarchical organization with a national headquarters and local chapters. Instead, it's a collection of groups committed to the same goal, employing tactics and operating on principles shared by Indivisible's founders online.

Indivisible is a group of progressive activists who are showing up at Republican town halls across the country with the purpose of wreaking havoc.

In its guide book, the observation is amplified that,

"To influence your own Member of Congress (MoC), you have to understand one thing: every House member runs for office every two years and every Senator runs for election every six years. Functionally speaking, MoCs are always either running for office or getting ready for their next election - a fact that shapes everything they do."
Members of the movement have caused representatives to flee town halls and, at times, cancel public events altogether. They've corralled constituents, visited district offices and made phone calls en masse demanding answers.

Click here to see their annual report from 2017, which reviews the impact of their movement last year.

Antifa - The George Soros Funded ultra-Violence Wing of Indivisible

The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their opposition to fascism through the use of NAZI Brown Shirt's fascist direct action. They engage in militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically.

Define “Nation”. Who Is Immigrant; Who Is Invader?

by Victor Shanti on Friday, February 11, 2011



Part 1 Pass Sandstrom Bill To Maintain "Equal Protection" Rule of Law

Part 2 Do Immigrants Plant Flags of Conquest Across The Continent?

Part 3 Does the immigrant teach the citizen to hate the adopted nation?

Part 4 Instructive Examples From the Past Challenge Our Future Decisions

Part 5 Addendum


Part 1

Pass Sandstrom Bill To Maintain "Equal Protection" Rule of Law

After my testimony speaking in favor of Rep. Sandstrom's bill, I heard that I was on TV. Since, I didn't see the TV segment, I have no idea what I may have said!; ^D) For my recollection from my notes, this is what I believe that I said:

"As a Black man, I am frequently asked for identification, for walking down the street, or even, while campaigning for a senatorial candidate, for sitting in my car in a White, Salt Lake County, neighborhood. [Unsaid, but intended: Prior to language in this bill, I have prefaced my interface with law enforcement officers, at times, with, "I am a citizen of the United States. Upon what probable cause, are you talking to me?"] Nonetheless, I support the inquiry provisions of the bill.

My name is Victor Shanti, while I could say that I am here to represent, votermilitia.org, I am here to represent myself. I am a legal immigrant into Utah from the State of New York. By way of introduction, I was the first not-White student to graduate from the "U", with an M.D. So, I am a doctor. Prior to my training, as a Forensic Psychiatrist, I studied in college, and subsequently, as an avocation, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. Despite my training, I would not deign to diagnose anyone present.

I would like to define two terms: immigrants are persons who enter the country to assimilate into our culture and language. Invaders are persons who cross our border expecting us to assimilate into their culture and language. We should remember that.

Children of immigrants ought to be granted citizenship; children of invaders ought not. However, that is a discussion for another time.

Utah does not stand in a shadow of the mountains when passing a law. What law you pass here will be known in every corner of teeming ghettos from Bedford-Styvesant, NY and Gary, IN to East St. Louis, or Watts and Oakland, Cali.

I would like to be more politically correct than necessary to speak to an observation made, Wednesday.

At a meeting in Hunter, UT, an audience member, speaking for Rep. Sandstrom's bill, somehow tied the difficulties of U.S. Representative, Charles Rangel, allegedly, misappropriating public money with impunity, with illegal aliens, also, committing crimes without penalty.

Regardless, of evidence, there is a perception in the African-American community that, if illegal activity by foreigners is not only condoned, but rewarded, if massive unemployment in American communities is tolerated, in order to give employment opportunities to foreign nations, then even, or especially, if, Congressman Rangel, who is my fraternity brother, violated the law, he should be exonerated, as a recipient of reparations, under the banner of "social justice".

Therefore, as a part of fortifying the perception, as well as, the reality, of equal protection under rule of law, promised by Amendment 14, Rep. Sandstrom's bill, which levels the playing field for American citizens, as opposed to foreigners, whom I would stress are not all illegal aliens ..."

Chairman Oda, "Mr. Shanti, your three minutes is up."

"from Mexico, ought to be passed.

I stand in favor of Rep. Sandstrom's bill."

Then, in response to a committee question of how would I define an invader, the reply "Anyone who crosses our border with no intention to ever assimilate into our culture, nor learn our language, is an invader."

The motion passed, along Party lines, 9 - 3.


Who Is Immigrant; Who Is Invader?

Do Immigrants Plant Flags of Conquest Across The Continent?

Part 2

Samuel Rangel, outreach coordinator for United for Social Justice (http://www.united4socialjustice.org/)

Please watch and give me your thoughts:


Victor Shanti, member of Voter Militia . org (http://www.votermilitia.org)

Until painted over for the third time in a month, there was a connecting graffiti in my neighborhood and that in Mannassas, VA, of "SUR13". The same identifying marking can be seen across Escondido, CA.

What might be the necessity of immigrants seeking assimilation, as opposed to invaders marking seized territory to define their conquered land across the breadth of the continent with the "flag" of "SUR13"?

Where is there evidence of an immigrant, not an invader, acculturating their "citizen" children into the history of the United States and patriotism to this Republic, when out of the mouth of the child comes the phrase, "This was our country before you got here."?

Parenthetically, my Iroquois ancestors were here before the Spanish who conquered Mexico and the Navajo Code Talkers, honored this past week by resolution of the Utah legislature, have ancestors who were here before any Europeans, yet neither, mine, nor their, children alienate themselves from the language, nor patriotism of the Republic of the United States.

Do immigrants, or invaders, march in the thousands, carrying by the hundreds, the flag of a foreign nation, while saying in a foreign language, "We didn't cross the border. The border crossed us!"?

These are questions that I put to you, Sam. I have the impression, Sam, that you pose as the impartial, standing on the sidelines, merely asking questions, when we both know that you have definite partisan opinions.

To post a series of videos is not to take a position. What, Sam, are your impressions of the videos you suggested that I watch and what are your answers to the questions posed in this post?


Who Is Immigrant; Who Is Invader?

Does the immigrant teach the citizen to hate the adopted nation?

Part 3

After I watched the videos at:


Samuel, took exception to my displeasure that a six year old accused a European-descent adult of being the descendent of imperialist conquerors.

Victor, I hope you watched the entire series, as to the child's comments it is fair to say that one can't judge the comments coming from a 6 year old girl who is trying to defend her parents who don't speak English fluently to try to win an argument.

As to the tagging the reality is that the youth will go into gangs to fulfill a need of purpose, gangsters tend to treat each other as brothers and with respect within the gang, many join simply because they literally don't have a family, the reason they have no family is because their parents are busy working 2 or 3 jobs to be able to provide a living and literally have no time to learn English, their status limits their ability to demand fair wages as you may well already know.

Second generation immigrants, the so called "Anchor Babies" (US born Citizen) otherwise also known as Chicanos are most likely to fit this pattern but are not necessarily the only ones tagging neighborhoods and joining gangs.

The evidence of an undocumented immigrant trying to assimilate into the American culture exists all around you but is not visible to those opposed to the undocumented simply because it is such a sensitive issue, it can change ones life 360 degrees by a simple point of a finger. And the inability to function effectively within the American culture is nearly impossible and attrition does not help deter or stop the problem it actually worsens it. People specially the youth will take other alternatives to make money, wasting creativity and lots of potential that could otherwise be used to better the economy.

My question is never who was here first, I believe history is important but more importantly is to live in the present and learn from the past to have a better future. As to the rallies and people carrying flags from other countries, the purpose I would believe it was to demonstrate the diversity, not to excuse the fact that it may give the impression of invading, I can assure you that no one in the undocumented immigrant community has plans to invade and or conquer the US, most if not all only want to provide a better future for their families, succeed in life and build a house back home where they can live the rest of their lives however means necessary in a good moral sense, and many tell me they are only here to work and prefer where they are from, believe me Latin Americans particularly do not like the cold weather.

My views are still forming as to the political spectrum, I admit I relate more to conservative views but I do stay impartial because I've learned now a days taking a side means putting up a barrier and even making enemies literally. Partisan per definition is a "fervent and even militant proponent of something", I am in fact a fervent proponent of solidarity and understanding different views, I strongly believe that the opposition to undocumented immigrants only exists out of not understanding the complexities that go into immigration itself, the only ability we have to grow as a nation economically, socially and morally are to work in solidarity for a common goal.

People are feeling oppressed by attrition laws, people are feeling oppressed by the federal government and people are feeling oppressed by big corporations governing the nation, our inability to work together will only mean the beginning of another Mexico or Egypt whatever we all may choose to live by in this nation.

My impressions of the video link I gave you is not merely as important to the reality that the consequences of what happened in Virginia and Arizona is happening here and Utah will not be immune, the consequences are a set back to this Nation and will keep trickling down to other nations until the divisiveness gets to the point where either states break off the Union or a country like China may decide to make the US its territory perhaps because of unpaid debt.

Sort of a long message but I do thank you for sharing your point of view, I can only hope you take mine into consideration and we can agree that taking millions of dollars off the Education fund to further penalize everyone in Utah by becoming a police state is counterproductive and morally wrong.

* * *

Samuel, whether the girl was six, or sixteen, if she were the child of an immigrant, not an invader, she would have "defended" her parents, by extolling the virtues and blessings they had found in their adopted motherland. She would not be regurgitating propaganda about America, as imperialist, that she learned from her parents. Should not the Mesitzo, in Mexico, rally against the imperialist Spanish, with equal vehelmance?

The patriotism of the Nissei, second generation Japanese, who fought for ideal of the values of the United States, even as their parents and siblings were housed in concentration camps, during WWII, did not mimic the alienation of the Chicano, as you describe the phenomenon. The former were taught patriotism and assimilation by immigrants; the latter resistance to imperialism and segregation by invaders.

I don't believe that I'm taking this paragraph out of context. I do believe the core of the criminal trespasser (invader) versus the legal immigrant is summarized in your post, where you say:

"I can assure you that no one in the undocumented immigrant community has plans to invade and or conquer the US, most if not all only want to provide a better future for their families, succeed in life and build a house back home where they can live the rest of their lives however means necessary in a good moral sense, and many tell me they are only here to work and prefer where they are from, believe me Latin Americans particularly do not like the cold weather."

The first, false, overly broad generalization is that trespassing invaders are solely Mexicans. While they are the most obvious, large numbers of Asians, India Indians, and folks who drop pamphlets in the Sonoran desert instructing how to be an explosive martyr, written in Arabic, are also, persons of interest hopefully caught by a law based upon the Sanstrom bill. The immigrant has no plans to return to the homeland they left, except perhaps as a tourist. The immigrant does not demand the country into which they are trying to assimilate adopt a foreign language as official, or Sharia law as a parallel code of justice. The invader will do either or both of those destabilizing activities.

Chris Herrod's multi-media presentation is far more eloquent in documenting the false compassion extended to persons who commit multiple felonies, just to provide a better future for their families. Frankly, if Mexicans, in particular, want a better life for their families, now, and their posterity, they should imitate a forebear, Pancho Villa, and take back their motherland from the narco-terrorists succeeding at seizing the machinery of State power. There's no sense in building a house back HOME, if home is a prison of oppression with narco-terrorists the prison guards.

You deny that Mexico wants to invade the United States. That opinion does not harmonize with Mexican nationals who emphatically told me, in the shadow of the Battle of Mule Hill, the next to last battle lost by the Mexican army during the Mexican War, that they do not recognize the possession by conquest of those territories formerly Mexico. One person, stamped his foot, spit, as told me in Spanish, "This is Mexico!" Oddly, sixty miles north of the border in Escondido, CA, I thought I was in the United States.

I am not ignorant of the fact that prior to the Mexican War, and prior to the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, large measure of the invasion of California and Hawaii was accomplished, the same way Hitler took Norway. That is by having a large number of "undocumented alien" young men on the ground, either as persons overstaying visas, refusing to deport themselves when they were so ordered, posing as students, or tourists, persons just there to earn a living. After a tipping point of foreign presence, within countries too inept to protect their borders, or too compassionate to expel the foreigners, the affected country became, de facto, a territory of the homeland of the "non-invaders". One could cite the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Germanic Barbarians, or the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to that which eventually became the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire. More current is the fact that Mexico, in no small way has made a soft annexation of the Southwest United States, by having the temerity, to have elections for two representatives in the Mexican Congress to represent their citizens in the U.S.

The very fact that these trespassers are sending billions of dollars back home, home not being anywhere within the United States, destabilizes the Republic of the United States. Perhaps, you saw the Super Bowl ad in which an American car company has the tag line, "Imported From Detroit". In parallel, rather than seeking guest workers from Tabasco, or Vera Cruz, the United States ought to be "importing" guest workers from the slums of Detroit, Watts, or Harlem. The perception, if not the fact, of preferential treatment of foreigners over suffering citizens, is fertilizer to grow domestic terrorists willing to fight a revolution in the U.S. the Mexicans are unwilling to foment in Mexico.


Who Is Immigrant; Who Is Invader?

Instructive Examples From the Past Challenge Our Future Decisions

Part 4

Samuel, in his post, touched upon a feeling of ennui that transcends all strata of our society, whether among citizens, legal immigrants, or apparently, the foreign invader groups. Samuel ascribes that dysphoria to oppression engendered by attrition laws. I think the emotions spring from a clash of cultures and a clash of defining that which is "truth", whether philosophical, or political. This section of my discussion addresses the points Samuel brings up in his post of:

People are feeling oppressed by attrition laws, people are feeling oppressed by the federal government and people are feeling oppressed by big corporations governing the nation, our inability to work together will only mean the beginning of another Mexico or Egypt whatever we all may choose to live by in this nation.

We are here met on a great uncivil war battlefield for the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of the world. Because of that, we are all terrified and perceived as terrorists by the others.

Courage manifests in proportion to action in the face of terror. Terror provokes varying degrees of the responses, fight, flight, or immobility. You know, in your heart of hearts, that you are terrified. Do you have sufficient courage to examine your response?

We are all justifiably terrified. I surmise, the general reasons for feeling such, have not changed over the span of human history, but, the means to know about threats and the means for individuals and groups to act upon the baser aspects of human nature, have never been greater. That, at its root, is the basis of our terror.

Individuals and societies have always had to confront the need for watchfulness against the other that the baser aspects of human nature compels. To facilitate the watchfulness and to promote increased tranquility, social contracts were formed and the responsibility to enforce social contracts were delegated to structures which have come to be known as government.

Today, as always, the subsidiary purposes of government are to decide if it is lawful to have grass of a certain height, or taxes of a certain amount, or whether the penalty for certain violation of a social contract ought to mean forfeiture of life. The primary purpose of government is, and has been, the control of human nature. To that end multiple forms have been tried, and retried, as if failed forms of the past might currently work because human nature had changed. Certainly, in the course of recorded history, no matter the source of record, human nature has not changed. The governments of despots will result in the death of millions, whether in the time of Cyrus the Persian or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Woodrow Wilson.

There will be tensions among whether government ought to be ruled by a chosen one, or a chosen few, or by the whole of society. There will be tension between those who come to decisions based upon their feelings and those who come to decisions based upon reproducible factual evidence. Out of all these tensions, and a review of tried and failed proposed solutions, came a convention of men that brought to the world the finest document to structure a government. It was a document which brought under control all the competing forces of their time, and, for all time, created a structure of government purposed to eradicate the worst aspects of human nature from disrupting social order and to hold off its re-emergence. That document was the Constitution of the United States.

Because human nature has not changed, Benjamin Franklin's response, given when asked what type of government he had participated in creating, is still pertinent, "A republic, if you can keep it." Additionally, because the adverserial tension between those who believe themselves, or they and a close cohort of experts, best to govern the masses, Lincoln's words at Gettysburg are still apropos. "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether [this] nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure . . . that this nation, UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Between those two timeless statements is encapsulated the civil war in which we find ourselves engaged, between the forces of socialism and federal republic, on a national stage, and on an international stage, among the philosophies of Judeo-Christianity, Islam, and Humanism.

Josef Stalin, in his "Marxism and the National Question" (Prosveshcheniye, Nos. 3 -5, March - May 1913) astutely defined a nation as:

A stable community of people, which is not organized by race, nor tribe, but formed on the basis of a:

Common language, within a

Common territory, sharing a,

Common economic life, that has economic cohesion, because of a

Common history, that results in, a

Common culture manifesting as a common psychological make-up and common perception of national purpose.

Upon reflection, isn't a basis of our terror derived because of assault on every aspect of these five fundamentals that create the sense of nationhood?

While the majority of U.S. citizens have politically dozed that someone else would protect and keep their Republic, certainly in excess of a century, others have passed to their posterity, tirelessly, the concept that nations must be organized not in territorial bodies but in simple associations of persons governed by social democracy. (Otto Bauer, Die Nationalitatenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie, 1907) There is overwhelming evidence that it is to such a philosophy the current ruling regime of the United States adheres. The question hangs is the philosophy of the regime, the social aspiration of the majority of the citizens?

In simpler, more explicit terms, the motivation behind constantly seeking new groups of hyphenated- Americans is a desire to create simple associations to pit against each other, to both, create artificial social crises, and, to create territorial-nation destroying opportunities for populist demagogues to offer themselves as a panacea. In other words, the Progressive Movement which creates crises, then offers itself as a solution to crises, while it metastasizes within the Republican and Democrat Parties.

Upon reflection, isn't a basis of our terror derived from indecision whether we should participate in what seems leading to the dissolution of the United States by joining an association or fight to maintain a territorial-based nation?

Upon reflection, isn't a basis for our terror the diminution of our economic opportunities because of an ever increasing usurpation of control of the means of production by government either, by regulation or by direct take over? Nationalization of the means of production whether by the right, as fascism, or by the left, as socialism to provide a stepping stone to communism, both require a powerful central government. The Founders of the United States were familiar with the concepts within the political movements of Fascism and Socialism, even though the specific terms had yet to be invented. The Constitution was specifically constructed to thwart the flourishing of those political forms. Therefore, it has been a successful tactic of the forces of big government to first seize control of the means of education, in order to, distort knowledge about the contents of the Constitution and why specific planks of the Constitution were inserted.

Another basis for our terror is controversy whether we should maintain a social contract that employs equal protection under laws, or change to a doctrine of social justice by which protection by laws is disproportionately dispensed, not by Justice blinded, but by Justice prejudicially tipping the scales to ameliorate perceived injustices suffered by previous generations of members of a hyphenated-American association or class. A corollary derived from social justice is the distortion that equal opportunity to succeed as an outgrowth of equal protection under the law means equal successful outcome. If the equality of success cannot arrive by natural means, then that circumstance must be artificially created by the government through redistribution that takes from each according to his abilities to give to each according to his needs.

We are engaged in a great uncivil, lukewarm, war, testing whether this nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can continue to endure . We are engaged in a massive cultural struggle for the minds and hearts of our citizens testing whether this nation, UNDER GOD, shall have a restoration of Constitutionally guaranteed freedom - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. But, and this is the culmination of all of our channels leading to terror, how can we accomplish it?

Depending upon one's degree of courage, the course of action, or inaction, to diminish a free floating sense of terror is somewhat straightforward. The strategy and tactics of Progressivism must be recognized in all of its manifestations and stopped at the source.

We must restore a common language. English must be declared the national language. No government document shall legally be written in any language but English. A significant reduction in the use of Latin legalese, also, would be beneficial.

We must have a common territory. Our borders must be defined and made impregnable. The impermeability of our borders, not consideration for the endangered status of a hypothetical albino cockroach, et al. must be the fundamental standard by which border security is put into place.

We must have a protected common economic life, that has economic cohesion. Commerce, in large measure, has no patriotism. No nation has withstood more than a hundred years under a system of a centralized bank, operating under a fractional banking system, issuing fiat money. The Federal Reserve System, that controls the economic life of the United States has been in existence for ninety-seven years. Is it any wonder the Republic is in the dire economic straits we find ourselves? The Fed must be abolished using the "one and twenty" strategy. The nation must return to sound money, a balanced budget, and a goal must be established to end deficit spending, even in time of crises and war.

We must restore education about our common history. To that end, the Federal Department of Education must be abolished. Even if it were a Constitutionally sanctioned agency of government, which it is not, this department has been singular with regulations promoting Progressive modified historical study that make the United States seem the embodiment of international imperialism and national genocide of indigenous peoples or the slave importer of the world. Such claptrap ought to be an illegal presentation of sedition.

Enabling a powerful central government must be resisted. The beast that has become the Federal government must be starved. A return to the limited powers delegated the Federal government under the Constitution must be restored by the recognition that the Supreme Court can and has made unconstitutional judgments. Those judgments must be exposed and retracted. All departments and regulatory agencies not permitted by the Constitution must be abolished. Most, if not all, the perceived benefits of Federally funded entitlement programs must become programs administered by the States, if they so choose, or must be borne as a responsibility by individuals.

All recommendations of new groups of hyphenated-Americans must become illegal. Protected status for various current hyphenated-American associations, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation must be repealed. We must have one nation ruled by equal protection under a body of laws that makes it explicitly clear that equality of justice means equal penalty for violation of the social contract; that equal opportunity for success does not result in equality of successfulness by all.

White demagogues and Black Race-Baiting Hustlers, also known as Poverty Pimps, are attempting to stir the emotions of Black citizens by falsely linking a justified movement to make being in the country illegally, illegal, with the civil rights struggles led by Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

As I was present in Washington, D.C. when he delivered that historic speech, I know that dissolving the Republic with fuzzy borders, unlimited illegal immigration, dilution of our unique American culture, both religious and historical, or the creation of unlimited new classes of hyphenated -Americans were not his intentions.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke his "I Have A Dream" speech, he did so from a thoroughly American perspective. He did not call out for an increase in the numbers of hyphenated-Americans. He dreamt of a nation which would be a beautiful symphony of brotherhood - a phrase taken from an oath pledged by members of the thoroughly American fraternity of which he was a brother. In his speech, he told of dreaming of a time, when rather than a country of hyphenated-Americans, forming associations based upon race, gender, or national origin of ancestors, there would be little black boys and black girls able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

M.L.K. had a dream that was a dream of restored national purpose springing from a common history. Even when that history was unfortunate and disastrous. He spoke of vicious racists, slums and ghettos of our northern cities, but it was our racists whose hearts needed softening, our slums and ghettos which needed revitalization. He called for a recognition of our common culture. "They have come to realize", he said referencing White Americans, "that their freedom is inextricably bound to our", meaning Black Americans, "freedom. They have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. We cannot walk alone."

The "I Have A Dream" speech spoke to the territorial integrity of the United States. Martin mentioned by name, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, but also, California, Colorado, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

The speech specifically denounced a doctrine of "social justice". Martin unequivocally said, "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

Terror induces three distinct responses - flee, immobility, or fight back. There is no place to which to flee. The United States is the last vestige of freedom, the last shining city on a hill. On the worldwide stage, the United States of America, has been the place to which to flee. A restored United States will have the power to reduce the terror in the hearts and minds of the others, concurrent with reducing the feeling of anxiety at home, because a strong United States has proven herself to be the defender, militarily, against despotism, the standard by which technological advancement has been measured whether describing everything from manufacturing to health care to space exploration and the political structure of government voluntarily adopted by every civilized nation on Earth.

The choice to remain immobile, or to pretend that we are not engaged in uncivil culture war, is false solace. Oprah, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars will suffer interruptions, on one's internet connected smartphone you will not be allowed to order pizza, if federal regulators have their way.

Unless one prefers to die a slave on one's knees than as a free citizen standing, there is no choice but to fight back. In this struggle we must remember that this is a war for territory in hearts and minds, not geographic territory, first and foremost. Fighting back will require more prayer than pistols, more persuasive argument than ammunition. As we struggle to restore the Republic, we must remember that in no small way the Founders constructed this nation to be guided by Judeo-Christian values, not a Progressive distortion of some mythical wall of separation that placed religious principles outside the wall and atheistic humanism inside with government. As Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, "If we stop being a nation under God, we will be a nation gone under."

When finally all of these requirements are put into place, then the bell of Liberty may ring renewed. When the bell of freedom is allowed to ring, it will ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city. In the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., unhyphenated-American hero, "All of God's children, Black men and White men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!' "


Part 5 - Addendum

(1) In response to the news article of:

4 More California Members Co-Sponsor Birthright Citizenship Act (Bilbray, Calvert, Campbell & Hunter]



Lawmakers in at least 14 states have said they are committed to passing the legislation targeting birthright citizenship.


I clarified my position on the matter with a post of:

Even simpler formula: The citizenship of the uterus is the citizenship of the fetus. If mom is not a full citizen, neither is the child.

(2) Sam Rangel of the group United for Social Justice (USJ) began heckling state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, author of a controversial Arizona-style immigration bill. When a supporter of the bill yelled back at Rangel, the argument quickly turned physical. News cameras from KLS-TV caught part of the altercation:


(3) Who are the SUR13? You are advised to know.




(4) Utah State Representative Chris Herrod speaks about The Forgotten Immigrants


(5) http://www.diygovernment.us/images/uofumd74.gif

(6) A .pdf version of this document is available at:


The Cloward-Piven Plan To Destroy The Nation Using Alinsky Tactic #4: Make The Enemy Live Up To Their Standards

In Their Own Words

The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty

The theory here, to force change through chaos, was among the most provocative of the 1960s.
by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven

From the Monday, May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation

How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

The strategy is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive. This gulf is not recognized in a society that is wholly and self-righteously oriented toward getting people off the welfare rolls. It is widely known, for example, that nearly 8 million persons (half of them white) now subsist on welfare, but it is not generally known that for every person on the rolls at least one more probably meets existing criteria of eligibility but is not obtaining assistance.

The discrepancy is not an accident stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency; rather, it is an integral feature of the welfare system which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.

The distribution of public assistance has been a local and state responsibility, and that accounts in large part for the abysmal character of welfare practices. Despite the growing involvement of federal agencies in supervisory and reimbursement arrangements, state and local community forces are still decisive. The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level. In recent years, local communities have increasingly felt class and ethnic friction generated by competition for neighborhoods, schools, jobs and political power. Public welfare systems are under the constant stress of conflict and opposition, made only sharper by the rising costs to localities of public aid. And, to accommodate this pressure, welfare practice everywhere has become more restrictive than welfare statute; much of the time it verges on lawlessness. Thus, public welfare systems try to keep their budgets down and their rolls low by failing to inform people of the rights available to them; by intimidating and shaming them to the degree that they are reluctant either to apply or to press claims, and by arbitrarily denying benefits to those who are eligible.

A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.

The ultimate objective of this strategy--to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income--will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family cannot be aided appreciably by job retraining, higher minimum wages, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now.

It has never been the full answer. If many people in the past have found their way up from poverty by the path of individual mobility, many others have taken a different route. Organized labor stands out as a major example. Although many American workers never yielded their dreams of individual achievement, they accepted and practiced the principle that each can benefit only as the status of workers as a whole is elevated. They bargained for collective mobility, not for individual mobility; to promote their fortunes in the aggregate, not to promote the prospects of one worker over another. And if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows as when he began, it was nevertheless clear that all were infinitely better off. That fact has sustained the labor movement in the face of a counter pull from the ideal of individual achievement.

But many of the contemporary poor will not rise from poverty by organizing to bargain collectively. They either are not in the labor force or are In such marginal and dispersed occupations (e.g., domestic servants) that it is extremely difficult to organize them. Compared with other groups, then, many of today's poor cannot secure a redistribution of income by organizing within the institution of private enterprise. A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty.

Several ways have been proposed for redistributing income through the federal government. It is not our purpose here to assess the relative merits of these plans, which are still undergoing debate and clarification. Whatever mechanism is eventually adopted, however, it must include certain features if it is not merely to perpetuate in a new guise the present evils of the public welfare system.

First, adequate levels of income must be assured. (Public welfare levels are astonishingly low; indeed, states typically define a "minimum" standard of living and then grant only a percentage of it, so that families are held well below what the government itself officially defines as the poverty level.) Furthermore, income should be distributed without requiring that recipients first divest themselves of their assets, as public welfare now does, thereby pauperizing families as a condition of sustenance.

Second, the right to income must be guaranteed, or the oppression of the welfare poor will not be eliminated. Because benefits are conditional under the present public welfare system, submission to arbitrary governmental power is regularly made the price of sustenance. People have been coerced into attending literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated. Men are forced into labor on virtually any terms lest they forfeit their welfare aid. One can prize literacy, health and work, while still vigorously opposing the right of government to compel compliance with these values.

Conditional benefits thus result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation, and in a pervasive oppression of the poor. And these violations are not less real because the impulse leading to them is altruistic and the agency is professional. If new systems of income distribution continue to permit the professional bureaucracies to choose when to give and when to withhold financial relief, the poor will once again be surrendered to an arrangement in which their rights are diminished in the name of overcoming their vices. Those who lead an attack on the welfare system must therefore be alert to the pitfalls of inadequate but placating reforms which give the appearance of victory to what is in truth defeat.

How much economic force can be mobilized by this strategy? This question is not easy to answer because few studies have been conducted of people who are not receiving public assistance even though they may be eligible. For the purposes of this presentation, a few facts about New York City may be suggestive. Since practices elsewhere are generally acknowledged to be even more restrictive, the estimates of unused benefits which follow probably yield a conservative estimate of the potential force of the strategy set forth in this article.

Basic assistance for food and rent: The most striking characteristic of public welfare practice is that a great many people who appear to be eligible for assistance are not on the welfare rolls. The average monthly total of New York City residents receiving assistance in 1959 was 325,771, but according to the 1960 census. 716,000 persons (unrelated or in families) appeared to be subsisting on incomes at or below the prevailing welfare eligibility levels (e.g $2,070 for a family of four). In that same year, 539,000 people subsisted on incomes less than 80 per cent of the welfare minimums, and 200,000 lived alone or in families on incomes reported to be less than half of eligibility levels. Thus it appears that for every person on welfare in 1959, at least one more was eligible.

The results of two surveys of selected areas in Manhattan support the contention that many people subsist on incomes below welfare eligibility levels. One of these, conducted by Greenleigh Associates in 1964 in an urban-renewal area on New York's upper West Side, found 9 per cent of those not on the rolls were in such acute need that they appeared to qualify for emergency assistance. The study showed, further, that a substantial number of families that were not in a "critical" condition would probably have qualified for supplemental assistance.

The other survey, conducted in 1961 by Mobilization for Youth, had similar findings. The area from which its sample was drawn, 67 square blocks on the lower East Side, is a poor one, but by no means the poorest in New York City. Yet 13 per cent of the total sample who were not on the welfare rolls reported incomes falling below the prevailing welfare schedules for food and rent.

There is no reason to suppose that the discrepancy between those eligible for and those receiving assistance has narrowed much in the past few years. The welfare rolls have gone up, to be sure, but so have eligibility levels. Since the economic circumstances of impoverished groups in New York have not improved appreciably in the past few years, each such rise increases the number of people who are potentially eligible for some degree of assistance.

Even if one allows for the possibility that family-income figures are grossly underestimated by the census, the financial implications of the proposed strategy are still very great. In 1965, the monthly average of persons receiving cash assistance in New York was 490,000, at a total cost of $440 million; the rolls have now risen above 500,000, so that costs will exceed $500 million in 1966. An increase in the rolls of a mere 20 per cent would cost an already overburdened municipality some $100 million.

Special grants: Public assistance recipients in New York are also entitled to receive "nonrecurring" grants for clothing, household equipment and furniture-including washing machines, refrigerators, beds and bedding, tables and chairs. It hardly needs to be noted that most impoverished families have grossly inadequate clothing and household furnishings. The Greenleigh study, for example, found that 52 per cent of the families on public assistance lacked anything approaching adequate furniture. This condition results because almost nothing is spent on special grants in New York. In October, 1965, a typical month, the Department of Welfare spent only $2.50 per recipient for heavy clothing and $1.30 for household furnishings. Taken together, grants of this kind amounted in 1965 to a mere $40 per person, or a total of $20 million for the entire year. Considering the real needs of families, the successful demand for full entitlements could multiply these expenditures tenfold or more and that would involve the disbursement of many millions of dollars indeed.

One must be cautious in making generalizations about the prospects for this strategy in any jurisdiction unless the structure of welfare practices has been examined in some detail. We can, however, cite other studies conducted in other places to show that New York practices are not atypical. In Detroit, for example, Greenleigh Associates studied a large sample of households in a low-income district in 1965. Twenty per cent were already receiving assistance, but 35 per cent more were judged to need it. Although the authors made no strict determination of the eligibility of these families under the laws of Michigan, they believed that "larger numbers of persons were eligible than receiving." A good many of these families did not know that public assistance was available; others thought they would be deemed ineligible; not a few were ashamed or afraid to ask.

Similar deprivations have been shown in nation-wide studies. In 1963, the federal government carried out a survey based on a national sample of 5,500 families whose benefits under Aid to Dependent Children had been terminated. Thirty-four per cent of these cases were officially in need of income at the point of closing: this was true of 30 per cent of the white and 44 per cent of the Negro cases. The chief basis for termination given in local department records was "other reasons" (i.e., other than improvement in financial condition, which would make dependence on welfare unnecessary). Upon closer examination, these "other reasons" turned out to be "unsuitable home" (i.e., the presence of illegitimate children), "failure to comply with departmental regulations'' or "refusal to take legal action against a putative father." (Negroes were especially singled out for punitive action on the ground that children were not being maintained in "suitable homes.") The amounts of money that people are deprived of by these injustices are very great.

In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy.

But information alone will not suffice. Organizers will have to become advocates in order to deal effectively with improper rejections and terminations. The advocate's task is to appraise the circumstances of each case, to argue its merits before welfare, to threaten legal action if satisfaction is not given. In some cases, it will be necessary to contest decisions by requesting a "fair hearing" before the appropriate state supervisory agency; it may occasionally be necessary to sue for redress in the courts. Hearings and court actions will require lawyers, many of whom, in cities like New York, can be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights. However, most cases will not require an expert knowledge of law, but only of welfare regulations; the rules can be learned by laymen, including welfare recipients themselves (who can help to man "information and advocacy" centers). To aid workers in these centers, handbooks should be prepared describing welfare rights and the tactics to employ in claiming them.

Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy that will overcome the invidious and immobilizing attitudes which many potential recipients hold toward being "on welfare." In such a climate, many more poor people are likely to become their own advocates and will not need to rely on aid from organizers.

As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare. For example, the system will not be able to process many new applicants because of cumbersome and often unconstitutional investigatory procedures (which cost 20c for every dollar disbursed). As delays mount, so should the public demand that a simplified affidavit supplant these procedures, so that the poor may certify to their condition. If the system reacts by making the proof of eligibility more difficult, the demand should be made that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare dispatch "eligibility registrars" to enforce federal statutes governing local programs. And throughout the crisis, the mass media should be used to advance arguments for a new federal income distribution program.

Although new resources in organizers and funds would have to be developed to mount this campaign, a variety of conventional agencies in the large cities could also be drawn upon for help. The idea of "welfare rights" has begun to attract attention in many liberal circles. A number of organizations, partly under the aegis of the "war against poverty," are developing information and advocacy services for low-income people [see "Poverty, Injustice and the Welfare State" by Richard A. Cloward and Richard M. Elman, The Nation, issues of February 28, 1966 and March 7, 1966]. It is not likely that these organizations will directly participate in the present strategy, for obvious political reasons. But whether they participate or not, they constitute a growing network of resources to which people can be referred for help in establishing and maintaining entitlements. In the final analysis, it does not matter who helps people to get on the rolls or to get additional entitlements, so long as the job is done.

Since this plan deals with problems of great immediacy In the lives of the poor, it should motivate some of them to involve themselves in regular organizational activities. Welfare recipients, chiefly ADC mothers, are already forming federations, committees and councils in cities across the nation; in Boston, New York, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, to mention a few. Such groups typically focus on obtaining full entitlements for existing recipients rather than on recruiting new recipients, and they do not yet comprise a national movement. But their very existence attests to a growing readiness among ghetto residents to act against public welfare.

To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.

Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America's poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative "business unionism" of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.

Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term "participation" is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles.

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the dram on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence. In the Northern rent strikes, for example, tenant participation depended largely on immediate grievances; as soon as landlords made the most minimal repairs, participation fell away and with it the impact of the movement. Efforts to revive tenant participation by organizing demonstrations around broader housing issues (e.g., the expansion of public housing) did not succeed because the incentives were not immediate.

Third, the prospects for mass influence are enhanced because this plan provides a practical basis for coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes. Advocates of low-income movements have not been able to suggest how poor whites and poor Negroes can be united in an expressly lower-class movement. Despite pleas of some Negro leaders for joint action on programs requiring integration, poor whites have steadfastly resisted making common cause with poor Negroes. By contrast, the benefits of the present plan are as great for whites as for Negroes. In the big cities, at least, it does not seem likely that poor whites, whatever their prejudices against either Negroes or public welfare, will refuse to participate when Negroes aggressively claim benefits that are unlawfully denied to them as well. One salutary consequence of public information campaigns to acquaint Negroes with their rights is that many whites will be made aware of theirs. Even if whites prefer to work through their own organizations and leaders, the consequences will be equivalent to joining with Negroes. For if the object is to focus attention on the need for new economic measures by producing a crisis over the dole, anyone who insists upon extracting maximum benefits from public welfare is in effect part of a coalition and is contributing to the cause.

The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes. We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert.

Although crisis impels political action, it does not itself determine the selection of specific solutions. Political leaders will try to respond with proposals which work to their advantage in the electoral process. Unless group cleavages form around issues and demands, the politician has great latitude and tends to proffer only the minimum action required to quell disturbances without risking existing electoral support. Spontaneous disruptions, such as riots, rarely produce leaders who articulate demands; thus no terms are imposed, and political leaders are permitted to respond in ways that merely restore a semblance of stability without offending other groups in a coalition.

When, however, a crisis is defined by its participants--or by other activated groups--as a matter of clear issues and preferred solutions, terms are imposed on the politicians' bid for their support. Whether political leaders then design solutions to reflect these terms depends on a twofold calculation: first, the impact of the crisis and the issues it raises on existing alignments and, second, the gains or losses in support to be expected as a result of a proposed resolution.

As to the impact on existing alignments, issues exposed by a crisis may activate new groups, thus altering the balance of support and opposition on the issues; or it may polarize group sentiments, altering the terms which must be offered to insure the support of given constituent groups. In framing resolutions, politicians are more responsive to group shifts and are more likely to accommodate to the terms imposed when electoral coalitions threatened by crisis are already uncertain or weakening. In other words, the politician responds to group demands, not only by calculating the magnitude of electoral gains and losses, but by assessing the impact of the resolution on the stability of existing or potential coalitions. Political leaders are especially responsive to group shifts when the terms of settlement can be framed so as to shore up an existing coalition, or as a basis for the development of new and more stable alignments, without jeopardizing existing support. Then, indeed, the calculation of net gain is most secure.

The legislative reforms of the depression years, for example, were impelled not so much by organized interests exercised through regular electoral processes as by widespread economic crisis. That crisis precipitated the disruption of the regionally based coalitions underlying the old national parties. During the realignments of 1932, a new Democratic coalition was formed, based heavily on urban working-class groups. Once in power, the national Democratic leadership proposed and implemented the economic reforms of the New Deal. Although these measures were a response to the imperative of economic crisis, the types of measures enacted were designed to secure and stabilize the new Democratic coalition.

The civil rights movement, to take a recent case, also reveals the relationship of crisis and electoral conditions in producing legislative reform. The crisis in the South took place in the context of a weakening North-South Democratic coalition. The strains in that coalition were first evident in the Dixiecrat desertion of 1948, and continued through the Eisenhower years as the Republicans gained ground in the Southern states. Democratic party leaders at first tried to hold the dissident South by warding off the demands of enlarging Negro constituencies in Northern cities. Thus for two decades the national Democratic Party campaigned on strongly worded civil rights planks but enacted only token measures. The civil rights movement forced the Democrats' hand: a crumbling Southern partnership was forfeited, and major civil rights legislation was put forward, designed to insure the support of Northern Negroes and liberal elements in the Democratic coalition. That coalition emerged strong from the 1964 election, easily able to overcome the loss of Southern states to Goldwater. At the same time, the enacted legislation, particularly the Voting Rights Act, laid the ground for a new Southern Democratic coalition of moderate whites and the hitherto untapped reservoir of Southern Negro voters.

The electoral context which made crisis effective in the South is also to be found in the big cities of the nation today. Deep tensions have developed among groups comprising the political coalitions of the large cities--the historic stronghold of the Democratic Party. As a consequence, urban politicians no longer turn in the vote to national Democratic candidates with unfailing regularity. The marked defections revealed in the elections of the 1950s and which continued until the Johnson landslide of 1964 are a matter of great concern to the national party. Precisely because of this concern, a strategy to exacerbate still further the strains in the urban coalition can be expected to evoke a response from national leaders.

The weakening of the urban coalition is a result of many basic changes in the relationship of local party leadership to its constituents. First, the political machine, the distinctive and traditional mechanism for forging alliances among competing groups in the city, is now virtually defunct in most cities Successive waves of municipal reform have deprived political leaders of control over the public resources--jobs, contracts, services and favors--which machine politicians formerly dispensed to voters in return for electoral support. Conflicts among elements in the urban Democratic coalition, once held together politically because each secured a share of these benefits, cannot now be so readily contained. And as the means of placating competing groups have diminished, tensions along ethnic and class lines have multiplied. These tensions are being intensified by the encroachments of an enlarging ghetto population on jobs, schools and residential areas Big-city mayors are thus caught between antagonistic working-class ethnic groups, the remaining middle class, and the rapidly enlarging minority poor.

Second, there are discontinuities in the relationship between the urban party apparatus and its ghetto constituents which have so far remained unexposed but which a welfare crisis would force into view. The ghetto vote has been growing rapidly and has so far returned overwhelming Democratic majorities. Nevertheless, this voting bloc is not fully integrated in the party apparatus, either through the representation of its leaders or the accommodation of its interests.

While the urban political apparatus includes members of new minority groups, these groups are by no means represented according to their increasing proportions in the population. More important, elected representation alone is not an adequate mechanism for the expression of group interests. Influence in urban politics is won not only at the polls but through the sustained activity of organized interests--such as labor unions, home-owner associations and business groups. These groups keep watch over the complex operations of municipal agencies, recognizing issues and regularly asserting their point of view through meetings with public officials, appearances at public hearings and the like, and by exploiting a whole array of channels of influence on government. Minority constituencies--at least the large proportion of them that are poor--are not regular participants in the various institutional spheres where organized interest groups typically develop. Thus the interests of the mass of minority poor are not protected by associations which make their own or other political leaders responsive by continuously calling them to account. Urban party organizations have become, in consequence, more an avenue for the personal advancement of minority political leaders than a channel for the expression of minority-group interests. And the big-city mayors, struggling to preserve an uneasy urban consensus, have thus been granted the slack to evade the conflict-generating interests of the ghetto. A crisis in public welfare would expose the tensions latent in this attenuated relationship between the ghetto vote and the urban party leadership, for it would thrust forward ghetto demands and back them with the threat of defections by voters who have so far remained both loyal and quiescent.

In the face of such a crisis, urban political leaders may well be paralyzed by a party apparatus which ties them to older constituent groups, even while the ranks of these groups are diminishing. The national Democratic leadership, however, is alert to the importance of the urban Negro vote, especially in national contests where the loyalty of other urban groups is weakening. Indeed, many of the legislative reforms of the Great Society can be understood as efforts, however feeble, to reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration. In the thirties, Democrats began to put forward measures to circumvent the states in order to reach the big-city elements in the New Deal coalition; now it is becoming expedient to put forward measures to circumvent the weakened big-city mayors in order to reach the new minority poor.

Recent federal reforms have been impelled in part by widespread unrest in the ghetto, and instances of more aggressive Negro demands. But despite these signs that the ghetto vote may become less reliable in the future, there has been as yet no serious threat of massive defection. The national party has therefore not put much pressure on its urban branches to accommodate the minority poor. The resulting reforms have consequently been quite modest (e.g., the war against poverty, with its emphasis on the "involvement of the poor," is an effort to make the urban party apparatus somewhat more accommodating).

A welfare crisis would, of course, produce dramatic local political crisis, disrupting and exposing rifts among urban groups. Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition. Whites--both working-class ethnic groups and many in the middle class--would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few and, in any event, receiving the beneficent assistance of public welfare, would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe. In New York City, where the Mayor is now facing desperate revenue shortages, welfare expenditures are already second only to those for public education.

It should also be noted that welfare costs are generally shared by local, state and federal governments, so that the crisis in the cities would intensify the struggle over revenues that is chronic in relations between cities and states. If the past is any predictor of the future, cities will fail to procure relief from this crisis by persuading states to increase their proportionate share of urban welfare costs, for state legislatures have been notoriously unsympathetic to the revenue needs of the city (especially where public welfare and minority groups are concerned).

If this strategy for crisis would intensify group cleavages, a federal income solution would not further exacerbate them. The demands put forward during recent civil rights drives in the Northern cities aroused the opposition of huge majorities. Indeed, such fierce resistance was evoked (e.g., school boycotts followed by counter-boycotts), that accessions by political leaders would have provoked greater political turmoil than the protests themselves, for profound class and ethnic interests are at stake in the employment, educational and residential institutions of our society. By contrast, legislative measures to provide direct income to the poor would permit national Democratic leaden to cultivate ghetto constituencies without unduly antagonizing other urban groups, as is the case when the battle lines are drawn over schools, housing or jobs. Furthermore, a federal income program would not only redeem local governments from the immediate crisis but would permanently relieve them of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare--a function which generates support from none and hostility from many, not least of all welfare recipients. We suggest, in short, that if pervasive institutional reforms are not yet possible, requiring as they do expanded Negro political power and the development of new political alliances, crisis tactics can nevertheless be employed to secure particular reforms in the short run by exploiting weaknesses in current political alignments. Because the urban coalition stands weakened by group conflict today, disruption and threats of disaffection will count powerfully, provided that national leaders can respond with solutions which retain the support of ghetto constituencies while avoiding new group antagonisms and bolstering the urban party apparatus. These are the conditions, then, for an effective crisis strategy in the cities to secure an end to poverty.

No strategy, however confident its advocates may be, is foolproof. But if unforeseen contingencies thwart this plan to bring about new federal legislation in the field of poverty, it should also be noted that there would be gains even in defeat. For one thing, the plight of many poor people would be somewhat eased in the course of an assault upon public welfare. Existing recipients would come to know their rights and how to defend them, thus acquiring dignity where none now exists; and millions of dollars in withheld welfare benefits would become available to potential recipients now--not several generations from now. Such an attack should also be welcome to those currently concerned with programs designed to equip the young to rise out of poverty (e.g., Head Start), for surely children learn more readily when the oppressive burden of financial insecurity is lifted from the shoulders of their parents. And those seeking new ways to engage the Negro politically should remember that public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past.

© 1966 The Nation

The Central American Caravan That Angered Trump Has Reached The US Border
- Cloward-Pivens applied to Immigration Policy

The "Bottom Up; Top Down; Inside Out" Strategy To Destroy the Republic

Bottom up:

in the U.S.

Milwaukee - a race riot initiated by Negroes.


Philadelphia - Amafrican youth in wilding attack


in the U.K.

Do these sound like oppressed youth, or brain-washed useful idiots, acting out the intent of the strategy?


Remember the rich is anyone who has what you want. Here we have an example of redistribution of wealth from the haves to the oppressed poor.


Destroyed in one hour after standing 150 years


indie music industry takes a hit. Although, if it destroyed the gangsta crap segment, it would be a self-cure.


in Chile:

Students throw firebombs to get a better education.


Top down:

Videos HERE About The Expansion of Federal Regulations, e.g., The Shrinking of YOUR Liberty, During The Last 70 Years, and How Those Regs Have Been Implemented

Two Cardiff men are in custody after being arrested for inciting criminality by misusing Facebook. Gwent Police urged people to use social media responsibly and not fuel rumours.

"I want to reassure them that, in the Gwent force area, we have not experienced major unrest as seen elsewhere but what we have had is irresponsible use of social media which has caused unnecessary fear and anxiety in the community.


Inside out.

If you have any doubt that to protect themselves from revolt by an armed oppressed society Progressives are willing to sacrifice you to a mob, read this story of how protecting your life is called vigilantism and you will be charged with murder for protecting yourself. This is why Amendment Two was demanded.


It's past time to correctly identify the root cause and expunge it, Progressive Party philosophy and policies.

It's time to call two, three!


The lines have been drawn. The curse it is cast. The slow one now will later be fast, as the present now will later be past. If your time to you is worth saving, you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone. For the times they are a changing." Bob Dylan

Using Food As A Weapon of Mass Control
Principle to achieve: Government must be the sole provider of everything necessary.

Would anyone expect the Illuminati not to have illumination? On the other hand, if a wealthy (understatement) business has the means to have a reliable generator, why ought there be criticism from other than those who are irrational?

The reverse of this in the greater Northeast, as the reality of damaged infrastructure with no power, no food, and no fuel sets in, is for there to be criticism raised that "as millions of atheists' children go hungry, a few thousand LDS kids eat well."

This post is a first step in freeze, vilify, personalize the target. Soon, as conditions worsen, those individuals who have prepared will be vilified as the "hoarders", identified and targeted by raids by government agents to seize by force their food storage, if they don't "voluntarily" surrender their illegal caches of food. Otherwise, they will disrupt the orderly redistribution of all food resources by FEMA as the only supplier.

That the image is blatant propaganda, not even relavent to a power outage at a specific hospital, on a specific day, is amplified by the fact that within the image, in any direction, no other buildings are without power, and not all of them are under the control of Goldman Sachs. Perhaps, even, the beneficience of Goldman Sachs' generators is providing backup to the entire group of buildings in the image.

HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.

[This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not a source of food contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

The TRI-State Coalition for Responsible Investment (CRI) is an alliance of RC (Roman Catholic or Roaming Communist) institutional investors primarily located throughout the New York metropolitan area. Their members utilize their power as shareholders to extort policies they favor from corporations under a guise of being accountable to social and environmental concerns.

While standing at the corner of the Irish Hunger Memorial park and New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), TriCRI, Maryknoll, Sojourners, and other faith and anti-hunger based organizations drew connections between excessive speculation in agricultural commodities and price volatility.

The axiom put forward by the ICCR's ( Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility ) Guidelines for Responsible Investing in Food Commodities , is that, "volatility leads to hoarding, hoarding leads to food spikes and food spikes can lead to famine".

In other words, those who understand that acts of God, acts of incompetent, or competent and craven, politicians, or the various permutations of chaos may mean that which they need constantly may be of fluctuating availibility, therefore, they stockpile when there is abundance not to starve when there is lack.

Continuing in the logic of the ICCR is that those who thusly prepare, say the LDS, are then responsible for increased costs of food by a grotesque mangling of a law of supply and demand, and are consequently, responsible for death by starvation when hard times inevitably occur.

The corrollary not factored in to the equation is that in time of greatest need, those previously prepared will not increase the demand on a limited supply, therefore, the prices should not be higher, they may well be lower.

As a side note, without any embarassment due to irony, the ecumenical appealing Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility , requires to read their documents a highly parochial requirement - "NOTE: The presentation will only play in the Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser. "

Does that indicate a partiality to assist an increase in world population at odds with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's stand on thinning the herd via modified vaccination, or does the exclusive Microsoft tie reveal the true agenda of the ICCR?



War and rumors of war have always been excellent platforms from which to launch Statist totalitarian control over food supplies. By way of example, three wars, three examples of governement seizure of food or the planned seizure of food:

Progressive icon, Woodrow Wilson, succeeded in 1917 passing the Lever Act, also known as, the Food and Fuel Control Act which created the United States Food Administration and the Federal Fuel Administration.


Result is arrest of even a military serving the health care needs of others.

"Navy Medical Director Nash had tons of food stored for wife and himself" - NYT, 1918



Is it as American as apple pie?

In Cleveland, a crowd of 50,000 besieges three downtown butcher shops. A California woman collects 8,400 cans of food. And the run on sugar and sugar substitutes is so great that many beehives are stolen for their honey.

Shades of the future as more shortages cripple the country? No, this outbreak of hoarding occurred during World War II just before the Government imposed rationing.


After rationing when food storage became a crime:

They had a ranch in West Texas, grew, canned and put up all their food for winter use on the ranch. One day someone squealed on them that they were “hoarding food” so the government raided their ranch and confiscated every bit of their stored food they found.


War on Terror

March 16, 2012 , Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(b) "Energy" means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.

(e) "Food resources" means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. "Food resources" also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.


Conclusion: Those that promulgate propaganda that vilifies Goldman Sachs for having generator capacity in time of widespread power failure, forge the chains of their own slavery.

Lesson #17 in How To Advance An Agenda By Propaganda

Since the creation of the above image of media consolidation, even fewer corporations control almost all media.

Disney Buys Much of Fox

Disney will scoop up Fox's movie and television studios, regional sports network and international holdings, among other investments.

The move adds to Disney's back catalogue high-grossing films such as the original Star Wars movies, the Marvel superhero pictures, Avatar and Deadpool, as well as TV hits such as Modern Family and The Simpsons.

To the expansion of Disney media control, above, the previous Disney media empire, below, must be appended.

Here are all the companies and divisions within Alphabet, Android's, Google's and YouTube's parent company, in April 2017.


George Soros' influence over the FCC is alarming

and a cause for significant Congressional oversight.

Hidden Collusion Amongst MSM Propagandists

JournoList (sometimes referred to as the J-List) was a private Google Groups forum for discussing politics and the news media with 400 "left-leaning" journalists, academics and others. Ezra Klein created the online forum in February 2007 while blogging at The American Prospect and shut it down on June 25, 2010 amid wider public exposure. Journalists later pointed out various off-color statements made by members of the list denigrating conservatives, as well as a seeming conspiracy to prop up then Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

AOL and Yahoo have joined to form Oath, part of Verizon.

Verizon said it has completed its $4.48 billion acquisition of Yahoo's operating business and formed a new subsidiary called "Oath" that includes both Yahoo and AOL.

Oath is "a diverse house of more than 50 media and technology brands that engages more than a billion people around the world," Verizon's announcement said.

Verizon is a home Internet provider and the largest wireless carrier in the US, its access to Internet subscribers' browsing histories could help boost the Yahoo/AOL advertising business. The Republican-led Congress and President Donald Trump recently wiped out rules that would have made it harder for ISPs to use their customers' browsing history to serve personalized advertising.

Verizon said Oath will "continue to build the industry’s most advanced and open advertising technology solutions, with brands such as One by AOL and BrightRoll that span across mobile, video, search, native and programmatic ads."

While Verizon purchased Yahoo's operating business, the rest of Yahoo will be re-named "Altaba." Altaba will essentially be a holding company for the 15-percent stake Yahoo owns in Alibaba, its 35.5-percent ownership stake of Yahoo Japan, as well as patents and some other investments.

Verizon said its "Oath portfolio includes HuffPost, Yahoo Sports, AOL.com, Makers, Tumblr, Build Studios, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Mail and more, with a mission to build brands people love."





Deadspin is a sports news and blog website, originally founded by Gawker Media, and currently owned by the Gizmodo Media Group subsidiary of Univision Communications' Fusion Media Group.

Univision Communications Inc. (UCI) is an American media company serving Hispanic and Latino Americans. The company dates back to the first Spanish language television network in the U.S., founded in the early 1960s as Spanish International Network (SIN).

When it comes to reporting, Univisions' criticism of Donald Trump's immigration and DACA policies, via its attack on Sinclair Media, cannot be considered unbiased.

When an article from a pro-illegal alien source relies upon the slant of ThinkProgress, which describes itself as a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP Action), a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization, the entire piece descends from a bias piece of reporting to outright left-wing propaganda.




Steps To Eliminate The Bill of Rights:

Abridge The Second Amendment

Criminalize The First Amendment

The Rest Evaporate Like Morning Dew



Members of Congress Who Questioned Mark Zuckerberg Had Received $641,685 From Facebook
By "losing" under Congressional grilling, Facebook opened an opportunity to win big by "Regulatory Capture"
Here's how much Facebook donated to every lawmaker questioning Mark Zuckerberg this week
                                                                                        By Sarah Jeong and Shannon Liao Apr 11, 2018, 9:00am EDT

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce today, fresh off the heels of a grueling five-hour joint session before the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees yesterday. In total, Zuckerberg will face questions from nearly 100 legislators, and many of those legislators have received thousands of dollars from the company Zuckerberg runs.

Over the last 12 years, Facebook has spent $7 million in campaign contributions. Historically, Facebook has donated slightly more to Democrats than Republicans, but overall, the platform's political footprint is small in Washington, DC relative to its market cap, which is currently calculated at about $400 billion. That's not unusual for technology companies: Amazon spent $4 million in campaign contributions over 20 years, and it has a market cap of nearly $700 billion. (Note, however, that Alphabet, Inc., with a market cap just over Amazon's, appears to be outspending Facebook in DC by an order of magnitude.)

According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, since 2014, Facebook has contributed a total of $641,685 to the members of Congress that Zuckerberg is facing this week. The top recipients of that money include Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

"If by losing a certain action more can be accomplished than by winning, then victory lies in losing. The organizer with acumen will lose."- Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, pg. 113.

The amount of money received didn't necessarily correlate to the hostility of questions asked by the legislators in Zuckerberg's first hearing. That said, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) did make a somewhat bizarre pro-Facebook comment, saying, "Some have professed themselves shocked, shocked that companies like Google and Facebook share user data with advertisers. Did any of these individuals stop to ask themselves why Google and Facebook don't charge for access? Nothing in life is free." Hatch has taken $15,200 from Facebook since 2014 - the sixth largest amount on the combined committees.

But other senators who have received even larger campaign contributions from Facebook didn't hold back. Cory Booker, who has received $44,025 from Facebook since 2014 (the largest amount), questioned Zuckerberg on the 2016 ProPublica investigation that showed Facebook allowed advertisers to target by race. Kamala Harris, who took the second largest amount ($30,990) grilled the CEO on why Facebook did not notify users in 2015 that Cambridge Analytica had misused their data, causing Zuckerberg to squirm uncomfortably.

If any senators pulled their punches, it was along party lines, when small-government Republicans like Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) or Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) questioned the necessity of additional regulation. At one point Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) held up a tablet and pointed at the Facebook "privacy" tab, blaming individuals for not properly reviewing their own settings. Wicker has received $10,000 from Facebook since 2014, Tillis has received $7,500, and Sullivan has received a whopping $2,500.

The campaign contributions from Facebook to all the legislators who posed Mark Zuckerberg questions this week are listed below. The list includes the members of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees and House Committee on Energy and Commerce are listed in full below, and dates back to 2014.


EU privacy regulations could make Facebook and Google even more powerful by deterring start-ups who lack resources http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5650581/EU-privacy-regulations-make-Facebook-Google-powerful.html

Never Forget That At Times The 'Children of Slaves, Can Evolve To Act as Slavemasters'

Small Arkansas town is attempting to ban groups from meeting to talk about the city without first getting prior permission from the city itself. Ordinance currently applies to all groups small and large including, but not limited to: bookclubs, boyscouts, and dinner table discussions.

In response to the mayor vetoing the City Council's attempt to repeal the First Amendment, the mayor was pistol whipped and later assaulted on live TV.

Three years later, the mayor resigned.

Undermining Freedom in Calaveras County

California Senator Introduces Bill That Requires State-Sanctioned Fact

Checkers to Approve Online Content

The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”

It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.

SB1424 is brief. Read it:

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
     (1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.
     (2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.
     (3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.
     (4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Senator Cory Gardner Fears Zuckerberg Hearings Could Lead To Government Regulation Of The Internet


Mark Zuckerberg: 'Optimistic' AI tools to flag, remove hate speech on Facebook will be developed in 5-10 years

Zuckerberg discloses Facebook working with Mueller in Russian Collusion Probe

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg disclosed Tuesday his company is “working with” special counsel Robert Mueller in the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign — and working hard to change its own operations after the harvesting of users’ private information by a Trump campaign-affiliated data-mining company.

Former FEC Chair Calls for Government Agency to Collect Social Media
Ann Ravel: expand definition of election ads, allow Facebook, Twitter to 'turn over lots of information'

Ann Ravel, the former Democratic chair of the Federal Election Commission who controversially pushed to regulate the internet during her time leading the commission, is now suggesting a new government enforcement agency be established to help tech companies discover questionable communications from social media sites in an effort to find alleged disinformation campaigns.

Under a section titled "Police Political Advertising" within the piece, the former chair told the publication that the definition of ‘election advertising' should be expanded to help detect new disinformation campaigns that may not be found under the current definition. This could be established if the FEC were to create a "multifaceted test" to help determine if certain additional communications should fall under the category of election-related materials, Ravel said.

Ravel added that if the definition were to be expanded, a new government enforcement agency could be created to help the tech companies find questionable communications, which would also help the FEC.

"For instance, communications could be examined for their intent, and whether they were paid for in a nontraditional way—such as through an automated bot network," The Atlantic writes of Ravel's idea.

The agency could mirror that of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which falls under the Treasury Department and tracks financial activities flagged by large institutions, Ravel said. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has been criticized in the past for allegedly targeting small businesses while letting figures such as former Democratic New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer off the hook.

Ravel claimed that this would allow social media sites—such as Facebook and Twitter—to hand over "lots of communications" from their sites to the government agency.

"The platforms could turn over lots of communications and the investigative agency could then examine them to determine if they are from prohibited sources," Ravel told The Atlantic.


Twitter endorses the Honest Ads Act, a bill promoting political ad transparency

In a series of tweets from its public policy account, Twitter just announced its decision to back the Honest Ads Act, (U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)) a piece of legislation introduced last year as a response to mounting evidence [blatant lie] that Russia leveraged domestic social media platforms in an attempt to influence U.S. politics during the 2016 presidential election.

Zuckerberg deflects senators’ Facebook questions, and gets $3 billion for the effort

Science Fiction or Science Fact? Could This Be An Explanation For Mass School Shootings

For more details, go to Muckrock.

Bill Gates backs a $1 billion plan to cover Earth in 'Big Brother' satellites capable of streaming 'live and unfiltered' HD footage of the planet

REI, the Seattle-based retailer, which doesn't sell guns, announced late Thursday that it will at least temporarily stop ordering ski goggles, water bottles, bike helmets and other products from some popular brands — including CamelBak, Giro and Bolle — because their parent company, Vista Outdoor, also makes ammunition and assault-style rifles. The decision came a few hours after REI's Canadian counterpart, Mountain Equipment Co-op, took a similar step.

"We believe that it is the job of companies that manufacture and sell guns and ammunition to work towards common sense solutions that prevent the type of violence that happened in Florida last month," REI said. "This morning we learned that Vista does not plan to make a public statement that outlines a clear plan of action. As a result, we have decided to place a hold on future orders of products that Vista sells through REI while we assess how Vista proceeds."


The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. - Rev. 13:15-17

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales If Washington Won't


Since it was the New York Times that stated the NRA favors bump stock restrictions, the item had to be fact-checked. Not surprisingly, the NYT statement was slanted to embrace their corporate liberal position and did not accurately reflect the NRA position.

President Donald Trump signed a memorandum in February directing the department to make the regulatory change, which must now be approved by the Office of Management and Budget before it is published and subject to a commentary period.

The move does not require congressional approval, allowing the administration to side-step what could have been insurmountable pressure from pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association that have worked to erode changes in firearm laws in the wake of mass shootings in Florida and Nevada.

The NRA supported more regulations on bump stocks but has not endorsed Trump’s ban and said previously it was awaiting the publication of the regulation before rendering judgment.


The nation’s largest privately held bank, First National Bank of Omaha, said it would stop issuing the NRA Visa card.

Bank of America, 2nd on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets, stops financing for makers of 'military style' rifles
Remington, Vista Outdoor and Sturm Ruger are three clients affected by the decision

Citigroup Inc., the nation’s fourth-largest bank, said in March it plans to prohibit retail chains that are its customers from offering bump stocks or selling guns to anyone who hasn’t passed a background check or is younger than 21.

Republic Bank confirmed it would no longer offer NRA Visa prepaid credit cards.

Securian Financial Group said it would not market various insurance policies to NRA members.

the IMF's Economic Forum Series, entitled "One World, One Currency: Destination or Delusion?"

'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness

In February, the head of Sweden’s central bank warned that Sweden could soon face a situation where all payments were controlled by private sector banks.

The Riksbank governor, Stefan Ingves, called for new legislation to secure public control over the payments system, arguing that being able to make and receive payments is a “collective good” like defence, the courts, or public statistics.

Most citizens would feel uncomfortable to surrender these social functions to private companies,” he said.


Pigovian Taxation Proposed To Decrease Gun Ownership

How AI-Driven Insurance Could Reduce Gun Violence

Exploring a market-based, technologically-enabled compromise to preventing gun violence.

Author: Jason Pontin

Americans do not agree on guns. Debate is otiose, because we reject each other’s facts and have grown weary of each other’s arguments. A little more than half the nation wants guns more tightly regulated, because tighter regulation would mean fewer guns, which would mean less gun violence. A little less than half answers, simply: The Supreme Court has found in the Second Amendment an individual right to bear arms. Legally prohibiting or confiscating guns would mean amending the Constitution, which the Framers made hard. It will never, ever happen.

We seem stuck. As a political issue, guns have become part of America’s endless, arid culture wars, where Red and Blue tribes skirmish for political and cultural advantage. But what if there were a compromise? Economics and machine learning suggest an answer, potentially acceptable to Americans in both camps.

Economists sometimes talk about “negative externalities,” market failures where the full costs of transactions are borne by third parties. Pollution is an externality, because society bears the costs of environmental degradation. The 20th-century British economist Arthur Pigou, who formally described externalities, also proposed their solution: so-called “Pigovian taxes,” where governments charge producers or customers, reducing the quantity of the offending products and sometimes paying for ameliorative measures. Pigovian taxes have been used to fight cigarette smoking or improve air quality, and are the favorite prescription of economists for reducing greenhouse gases. But they don’t work perfectly, because it’s hard for governments to estimate the costs of externalities.

Gun violence is a negative externality too. The choices of millions of Americans to buy guns overflow into uncaptured costs for society in the form of crimes, suicides, murders, and mass shootings. A flat gun tax would be a blunt instrument: It could only reduce gun violence by raising the costs of gun ownership so high that almost no one could legally own a gun, which would swell the black market for guns and probably increase crime. But insurers are very good at estimating the risks and liabilities of individual choices; insurance could capture the externalities of gun violence in a smarter, more responsive fashion.

Here’s the proposed compromise: States should require gun owners to be licensed and pay insurance, just as car owners must be licensed and insured today. Blue America would abandon its claims that guns and their markets should be legally restricted, except for restrictions that compel very broad consent (such as requiring background checks on all gun purchases). Almost anyone could own almost any gun or combination of guns. In exchange, Red America would agree that gun owners should pay a fair share of the aggregate cost of their choices. The compromise would ask gun owners to be more responsible while respecting their rights to own guns. It would satisfy those who want fewer guns, because truly capturing the cost of ownership would reduce demand. Insurers would benefit from new customers, and victims or their families could be partly compensated for their suffering.

The idea of states requiring gun owners to buy insurance is not new; the Illinois General Assembly debated a “firearm owners’ ID insurance” in 2009, without much to show for the debate. Like all proposals for addressing gun violence, it has weathered objections. Critics argue that criminals would not pay insurance, or would have someone pay for insurance at the time of purchase, and not thereafter. When lawmakers in a half-dozen states, including California, Connecticut, and New York, considered the concept after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, insurers fretted that their policies only covered accidents or unintentional acts; they worried companies would have to design new, “umbrella” policies, which might not work. But one oft-stated complaint by the National Rifle Association can be rejected: Gun insurance would not be a prior restraint, imposing undue costs on the exercise of a constitutional right. Artificial intelligence and data analytics could price insurance so that guns did not become prohibitively expensive for too many Americans.

The actuaries who research risk have always considered a wide variety of factors when helping insurers price the cost of a policy. Car, home, and life insurance can vary according to a policy holder’s age, health, criminal record, employment, residence, and many other variables. But in recent years, machine learning and data analytics have provided actuaries with new predictive powers. According to Yann LeCun, the director of artificial intelligence at Facebook and the primary inventor of an important technique in deep learning called convolution, “Deep learning systems provide better statistical models with enough data. They can be advantageously applied to risk evaluation, and convolutional neural nets can be very good at prediction, because they can take into account a long window of past values.”

State Farm, Liberty Mutual, Allstate, and Progressive Insurance have all used algorithms to improve their predictive analysis and to more accurately distribute risk among their policy holders. For instance, in late 2015, Progressive created a telematics app called Snapshot that individual drivers used to collect information on their driving. In the subsequent two years, 14 billion miles of driving data were collected all over the country and analyzed on Progressive’s machine learning platform, H2O.ai, resulting in discounts of $600 million for their policy holders. On average, machine learning produced a $130 discount for Progressive customers.

When the financial writer John Wasik popularized gun insurance in a series of posts in Forbes in 2012 and 2013, the NRA’s argument about prior constraints was a reasonable objection. Wasik proposed charging different rates to different types of gun owners, but there were too many factors that would have to be tracked over too long a period to drive down costs for low-risk policy holders. Today, using deep learning, the idea is more practical: Insurers could measure the interaction of dozens or hundreds of factors, predicting the risks of gun ownership and controlling costs for low-risk gun owners. Other, more risky bets might pay more. Some very risky would-be gun owners might be unable to find insurance at all. Gun insurance could even be dynamically priced, changing as the conditions of the policy holders' lives altered, and the gun owners proved themselves better or worse risks.

Requiring gun owners to buy insurance wouldn’t eliminate gun violence in America. But a political solution to the problem of gun violence is chimerical. A market-based, technologically enabled compromise might be the only alternative for two communities who will never agree about guns, but must somehow find a way to live together in a republic of ends.

Jason Pontin (@jason_pontin) is an Ideas contributor for WIRED. He is a senior partner at Flagship Pioneering, a firm in Boston that creates, builds, and funds companies that solve problems in health, food, and sustainability. From 2004 to 2017, he was the editor in chief and publisher of MIT Technology Review. Before that he was the editor of Red Herring, a business magazine that was popular during the dot-com boom. Pontin does not write about Flagship’s portfolio companies nor about their competitors.

Gun Violence

Two insurance companies, Chubb and Lockton Affinity, have partnered with the NRA to provide NRA Carry Guard insurance to gun owners who shoot someone in "self-defense".

Insurer Lockton will no longer offer NRA gun owner insurance

Lockton Affinity, an insurance company that sells the NRA Carry Guard program for gun owners, said Monday night it will discontinue the terms of its contract with the National Rifle Association.

The NRA describes Carry Guard as a “state-of-the-art” policy to help gun owners when they use their firearm for self-defense and end up in a “legal nightmare.” On its site, the NRA touts the program as a major benefit of membership.

Insurer Chubb also said last week that it gave notice three months ago of its plan to stop underwriting coverage for NRA members. It was not immediately clear Monday what will happen to the Carry Guard program without Chubb’s and Lockton’s participation.


New York pushes JPMorgan, BofA, Visa to reconsider gun-sale risk

Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the financial watchdog who also oversees the $209.1 billion retirement system for public employees, last week sent letters to nine companies. He asked them to explore whether gun transactions should be classified with restricted high-risk purchases like porn, drugs and cryptocurrencies, a spokesman said Wednesday.

The $209.1 billion pension, the third largest in the U.S., contacted the chief executives of nine financial institutions — Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, First Data Corp. and Worldpay Inc. — asking them to assess risks and explore the cost of implementing systems that could reject purchases of firearms, ammunition or accessories.

Yet, taxation and mandatory insurance, slandered as "murder insurance" are not enough to satisfy gun grabbers



What Is The:
(Secret Service) Safe Schools Initiative
NJ Zero Tolerance for Guns Act
US Department of (Indoctrination) Education Gun Free Schools Act

At a meeting President Trump encouraged lawmakers to stand up to the NRA and pass a comprehensive gun control bill while stating that some of his fellow Republicans were "petrified" of the NRA.

(Anti-gun) Passed: S.B. 27 - Relationship Violence and Offenses Amendments

Sponsors: Senator Todd Weiler and Representative Angela Romero

Although the intentions of this bill are good and it's anti-gun provisions will probably affect very few people, we view it as a big loss. We view it as the first step in the door to an ever increasing list of reasons people can have their guns confiscated based upon reasonable suspicion without ever being charged with a crime.

The USSC along with the NRA worked with the bill's Senate sponsor to get the anti-gun language removed. At each step of the process we were told it would get fixed and to not worry. At each step of the way, nothing happened. Finally at the last minute, some concessions were added to the bill. These however fell far short of what was needed, and the bill was quickly sent to a vote before we could alert our supporters and make our opposition known to lawmakers.

S.B. 27 allows law enforcement to confiscate a person's firearm or other weapon upon a mere allegation of stalking and only requires a "reasonable suspicion" of stalking rather than the higher threshold of "probable cause" which under current law would allow for an arrest and confiscation of the firearm.

Among the many things S.B. 27 does is it provides that, when law enforcement receive an allegation of stalking, they shall confiscate the weapon or weapons used in the alleged stalking. Note that this bill only deals with the weapon used in the alleged stalking not any other weapons owned by the alleged stalker (you can be sure this is a built-in loophole that the banners will want to close next session.) The weapon will be returned to the the alleged stalker if the person who makes the stalking claim fails to get a judge to issue a stalking injunction or the stalking injunction is lifted.

While the USSC supports protecting victims of abuse, our issue with the bill is that it allows the confiscation of firearms based upon allegations and does not provide a timeline as to when law enforcement is to return a confiscated weapon if subsequently no injunction is issued. If one is falsely accused and the accuser never tries to get a restraining order, the police could keep the firearm indefinitely and claim that the alleged victim could petition for an injunction some time in the future. A person would then have to hire a lawyer and spend more money than the gun is worth to get it back.

The biggest threat we face going forward are these types of bills. Bills that allow the confiscation of firearms based upon allegations with no due process or "Minority Report" type bills that seek to strip people of their gun rights based upon the claim that they may commit a crime in the future.

Emblematic of the goals of false facades called political parties is encapsulated in a slogan of Mussolini, "All within the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State."

Fascism is unconcerned with advance of any point of view that does not maintain and magnify the power of oligarchs to make subservient the greatest number of those who are not them. Any pretense by fascists that their intent is to give voice to a larger constituency is a bold lie. It will be apparent by the language of such a pronouncement that its verbiage advances power favoring a few over the prerogative of a party to select its own candidates.

Illustrative of such a fascist mindset that is a fifth column within the Utah Republican Party is HB 485, sponsored by Rep. Michael Mckell, and the gang of eight that voted it out of committee.

A proof of concept is within the bill's threat that if a coalition of like-minded do not submit to the State's edict as to whom may run as their candidate, (all within the State), an alternative candidate chosen by them (nothing outside the State) will not be allowed on the ballot. (nothing against the State).

taking the lead on an anti-school violence bill, the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act. https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=88C4B2FD-F3DE-4DEB-A018-B91483D285BB

Speaking exclusively to RedState, Hatch discussed this bill, his thoughts on gun control and the March For Our Lives protesters, and the latest omnibus spending bill, which contains his STOP School Violence Act as well as Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) Fix NICS bill, http://freebeacon.com/issues/nra-blasts-misleading-claims-made-gun-background-check-bill-ahead-house-vote/ which seeks to fix problems with the national firearms purchasing background check system. https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/11/release-hatch-co-sponsors-bipartisan-fix-to-background-check-system

Hatch never directly criticized the pro-gun control protests, associated with some of the other Stoneman Douglas students like David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Emma Gonzalez. He did remark that he could “understand those who want to blame people,” and acknowledged that they were “completely justified” in that feeling and in the desire to “make a point,” but thought that the approach of the Parkland families who had met with him and worked with the Sandy Hook parents to advance this bill was the wiser path.


Orrin Hatch

Sen. Lee: Leave School Safety to Parents & Schools, 'Not People in Washington'

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) argued that in order to increase safety at schools and prevent incidents like the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, Florida, efforts should be made by parents, teachers and schools, not the federal government.

"How people secure a school in one community and one state, one part of the country or another is going to vary," Lee explained on "Happening Now" on Tuesday.

He said that he wasn't sure if federal initiatives like the STOP School Violence Act would be enough to increase school safety.


Mike Lee

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey introduced a bill this month that would incentivize other states to adopt his state's gun laws, which advocates say have helped make Massachusetts the home of the lowest gun death rate in the country.

In 2016, 3.4 people per 100,000 died of gun violence in Massachusetts, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, in slightly less-populous Tennessee, the firearms death rate was nearly five times that, at 17.3 per 100,000.

Markey's bill would allocate $20 million in Department of Justice grants each year for the next five years to states that adopt laws like those in Massachusetts.

Most well-known is the state's ban on assault weapons, signed in 2004 by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, who is currently running for U.S. Senate. The state also requires gun dealers to conduct background checks, mandates private sellers to verify that buyers have a valid gun license, bans “mentally defective” people from owning firearms, and requires weapons to be unloaded and locked away when not in use.

Additionally, It gives police chiefs the authority to deny, suspend or revoke licenses for handguns and long guns.

The involvement of police chiefs in the licensing process is key. We can’t overstate that enough,” Markey said at a press conference about his bill earlier this month.

The law is a fairly unique one. Currently, only five other states and the District of Columbia have enacted a law allowing local law enforcement to approve or deny gun licenses -- California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey.


When Mitt Romney ran for president in 2012, he faced the impossible challenge of convincing conservatives to support him, despite his long and distinguished track record as a Massachusetts liberal.

Romney began building his liberal portfolio when he attempted to unseat Ted Kennedy in the US Senate, a race where Romney adopted the policies of the man from Chappaquiddick, including support for Roe v. Wade.

When Mitt Romney ran for president in 2012, he faced the impossible challenge of convincing conservatives to support him, despite his long and distinguished track record as a Massachusetts liberal.

Romney began building his liberal portfolio when he attempted to unseat Ted Kennedy in the US Senate, a race where Romney adopted the policies of the man from Chappaquiddick, including support for Roe v. Wade.


Several years later, then-Governor Romney partnered with Teddy to create Romney-Care—the blueprint used to create Obamacare. [Mitt Romney Finally Admits Obamacare Was Based On Romneycare, http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/23/mitt-romney-finally-admits-obamacare-was-based-on-romneycare/]

MIA is a definitive statement from Romney on his latest stance on gun control that is the same or different than his position when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney

Larry Meyers

No definitive statement from Bishop on his stance on gun control. But, actions speak louder than words:

March 14, 2018 HR 4909 STOP School Violence Act of 2018, His vote: Yes; Bill Passed - House (407 - 10)

Rob Bishop

Stewart said he supports measures that would temporarily take away guns from people with mental health issues and ban items like bump stocks that essentially turn semi-automatic guns into automatic ones.

The problem is, if we (ban assault rifles), and then there’s another shooting, which there will be, then they say ‘OK, well it didn’t go far enough,’” Stewart said. “And then we have to ban something else.”

Joseph Platt, who said he’s a gun owner with roots in Southern Utah, asks Rep. Chris Stewart a question about gun control at a town hall meeting at Desert Hills High School in St. George, Utah, March 27, 2018 | Photo by Spencer Ricks, St. George News

Stewart assured the audience that while he’s a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, he will also support ways “to make society safer.”


Chris Stewert

I believe we can bring the safety people are looking for without infringing on the Second Amendment,” Rep. Curtis affirmed. But he said the people who know the very most about guns go silent when the debate comes up. He continued, “Those of us who understand guns need to lead the debate. We understand how to make guns safe better than anybody else.”

Curtis said the Federal Government, State Government, Local Government, families and individuals are all responsible for gun safety and, “We shouldn’t be afraid to talk about anything.” He said thoughtful people need to have a meaningful discussion, but the question is, “Will the government act?”

Rep. Curtis said one of the ways we let those kids in Florida down was in the number of people who came in contact with the shooter but did not act. He advocates enacting state legislation to establish a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO). He said, “I think it’s a logical, thoughtful thing to do that would make a difference.” He said nobody thinks a mentally unstable 19-year-old should be able to buy a firearm, and we should spend some time talking about how that never happens.


John Curtis

I’m willing to put everything on the table, including bump stocks and exploring judicial processes to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands,” she wrote in the letter.

In the weeks following a deadly shooting rampage that killed 17 at a Florida high school last month, Love has said publicly she’d support banning bump stocks. She said on the Utah Senate floor on Feb. 22 that she was also open to “talk about what our children are exposed to.”

She declined to say in a meeting with The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board last month whether she supported banning certain high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles. But she said she’d consider any proposal that data show could be effective in stopping gun violence.

I am for, I would be completely open to raising the age threshold on ARs,” she told the editorial board. AR often refers to “assault rifles.”

Immediately, she said, she wanted to see what schools needed to improve security. She said she didn’t know whether armed teachers would be part of that equation.

he declined to say in a meeting with The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board last month whether she supported banning certain high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles. But she said she’d consider any proposal that data show could be effective in stopping gun violence.

I am for, I would be completely open to raising the age threshold on ARs,” she told the editorial board. AR often refers to “assault rifles.”

Immediately, she said, she wanted to see what schools needed to improve security. She said she didn’t know whether armed teachers would be part of that equation.


Mia Love

Things are not ok here in Utah and we will be asking for you help to stem the tide shortly.

The gun control forces are exploiting the Parkland Florida tragedy and are mobilizing like never before. At this point they are winning as numerous formerly solid pro-gun lawmakers are jumping on board with them. On Friday Republican Governor Rick Scott, who just this past April was a guest speaker at the NRA convention, has just caved into the gun ban lobby and has proposed a whole slew of California-style gun control legislation including waiting periods. He is also considering stripping young adults of their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from buying ANY type of firearm (CNN article).

In Utah things are not good. We will be asking for your help in the next few days to make your voices heard. We cannot be complacent any longer. There is a feeling among many that with Republicans controlling the executive and legislative branches of the federal government that there is no need to worry. That has been the case for some time, but no longer.

What is disturbing about these gun control proposals is that, not only would they do absolutely nothing, they would in many cases make us less safe.

We will be asking you to contact lawmakers starting Monday. Please take the time now to arm yourself with information regarding the stupidity of the gun ban argument. Please read the following article from the Daily Wire. It sums up our thoughts perfectly.

There is no way we can beat these people at the money game. The only way we can win is if we take the time and let lawmakers know that the New York Times and CNN does NOT speak for Utah.

1) Contact both Senators Hatch and Senator Lee and ask them to ask them to oppose all gun control bills.

Senator Mike Lee



E-mail Sen. Mike Lee

Senator Orrin Hatch



E-mail Senator Hatch

2) Contact your U.S. Representative in Congress and ask them to oppose all gun control bills:

Find your U.S. Representative Here

1st Congressional District

Representative Rob Bishop

E-mail Rob Bishop



2nd Congressional District

Representative Chris Stewart

E-mail Chris Stewart



3rd Congressional District

Representative John Curtis

E-mail John Curtis



4th Congressional District

Representative Mia Love

E-mail Mia Love



and then, there's Agenda 21

Fair Use Notice